Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Policy and Organisation Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 30th September 2026
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 30th September 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 30th September 2026
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 30th September 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
30 Sep 2026
30 Sep 2026
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
To receive apologies for non attendance.
Minutes
There were none.
2
Declarations of interest
All Members are required to disclose at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any item(s) being considered at this meeting.
Minutes
There were none.
3
Minutes of the meetings of the board held on 1 July 2026 and 15 July 2026
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 1 July 2026 and 15 July 2026.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 01/07/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 22 Sep 2026
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 15/07/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 22 Sep 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 1st July 2026 and 15th July 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Monday 28September 2026. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
There were none.
5
Public Questions - Standing order 3.5
(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 28 September 2026).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Housing Service Complaints Policy
The purpose of the report is:
1) To set out the requirements for the Housing Service to comply with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code,
2) To make the Board aware of the recommendations where revisions are required to comply with the code.
3) To seek Board approval of the draft Housing Service Complaints Policy.
1) To set out the requirements for the Housing Service to comply with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code,
2) To make the Board aware of the recommendations where revisions are required to comply with the code.
3) To seek Board approval of the draft Housing Service Complaints Policy.
Attachments:
- Document Housing Complaints Policy P&O Board Report 30 Sept 2026 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - GBC Housing Complaints policy DRAFT 18 Sept 2026 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - Housing Ombudsman Recommendations 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 3 - GBC IIA - Complaints - Equality and Climate Change template 2-25 amendment Version 2.0 Complaints policy 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 4 - DRAFT Official Complaints booklet August 2026 IMPO 22 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Housing, Assets and Communities setting out the requirements of the Housing Service to comply with the Housing Ombudsman Complaints handling code.
The Board was advised that the report detailed the proposed Housing Service Complaints Policy following the Housing Ombudsman’s review of the Complaints Policy in 2025/26 as part of its duty to monitor the policy’s compliance with the complaints handling code. This is done by assessing the policy against the requirement of the Code, to determine complaint and identify areas of improvement.
The Board was advised that the Policy was compliant but that there had been 6 recommendations from the Housing Ombudsman, the updated policy was being presented to the Board for approval.
Members recognised that it was important to note that there was no noncompliance and that the amendments to the Policy were in a response to recommendations by the Housing Ombudsman, as opposed to failures.
The Board recognised that the recommendations were to strengthen the process, give a better experience to the residents and provide greater clarity for residents. It was recognised that the resident’s opinion panel had provided input into the review process and that the proposed policy was fit for the end user.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approves:
1) The draft Housing Complaints Policy (Appendix 1), and
2) Gives delegated authority to the Director of Housing, Assets and Communities to implement the policy.
The Board was advised that the report detailed the proposed Housing Service Complaints Policy following the Housing Ombudsman’s review of the Complaints Policy in 2025/26 as part of its duty to monitor the policy’s compliance with the complaints handling code. This is done by assessing the policy against the requirement of the Code, to determine complaint and identify areas of improvement.
The Board was advised that the Policy was compliant but that there had been 6 recommendations from the Housing Ombudsman, the updated policy was being presented to the Board for approval.
Members recognised that it was important to note that there was no noncompliance and that the amendments to the Policy were in a response to recommendations by the Housing Ombudsman, as opposed to failures.
The Board recognised that the recommendations were to strengthen the process, give a better experience to the residents and provide greater clarity for residents. It was recognised that the resident’s opinion panel had provided input into the review process and that the proposed policy was fit for the end user.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approves:
1) The draft Housing Complaints Policy (Appendix 1), and
2) Gives delegated authority to the Director of Housing, Assets and Communities to implement the policy.
7
Financial Monitoring Report for Quarter 1 2026/27 General Fund Revenue Budget and Capital Programme.
This report provides Members with an update on the Council’s Quarter 1 financial performance against the approved budget set by Full Council in March 2026. It also provides an update to the Council’s approved General Fund Capital Programme following the closure of last year’s accounts and emerging priorities in this new Financial Year.
Attachments:
- Document PO Board Report - Q1 Financial Monitoring 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix A General Fund Capital Programme 202627 - 203031 22 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Finance providing Members with an update on the Council’s Quarter 1 financial performance, against the approved budget set by Full Council in March 2026. It also provides and update to the Council’s General Fund Capital Programme following the closure of last year’s accounts and emerging priorities in the new financial year.
The Board was advised that it was a new reporting mechanism and that reporting quarterly against the budget was good practice and part of the recommendation of the peer review.
The Board were advised that the Council were forecast to overspend by £23,000 this current financial year, largely due to increase court costs, and a increases in the Council’s insurance premium, both of these costs were outside the Council’s direct control.
The Director of Finance presented a revised format for the Capital Programme, this was a recommendation of the Transdormation and Savings Task and Finish Group. The new Programme now clearly showed a breakdown how schemes were financed.
It was recognised that it was important to show the Capital Programme from previous years as this was important to show any slippage. Examples of this included the disabled facilities grants and the Local Regeneration Fund waterfront project.
It was reiterated that it was good practice to undertake financial reporting quarterly, and the Board was advised that none of the borrowing was new, it was all as reported within the approved capital programme form March 2026 and was essentially a reprofiling of expenditure.
The Board were advised that the funds for the beach management plan were still marked as TBC as it was anticipated they would come from the Environment Agency, via the Coastal Partners, but was not confirmed at this stage.
Members welcomed that the predicted overspend was minimal and sought clarification of the current position of the new Council homes as they were still overdue. The Board was advised that the report presented considered the General Fund, and work was ongoing to produce a similar report for the Housing Revenue account. This report would be presented to a future Board.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the capital fund spend on waste was for the purchase of food waste bins.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that with regard to the essential repairs detailed at line 20 of the general fund, this was to replace hygiene units in public conveniences.
It was reiterated that the slippage was mainly linked to the LRF on the waterfront, but this was the public realm element and not the waterfront park, and that this was while some reprofiling work was undertaken, it was not a request for additional money.
A Member advised that they welcomed the report, and the presentation of funding sources and recognised that regular reporting of the financial position was valuable and transparent.
A Member advised that they wished for the recommendations presented to be taken separately.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
i) Notes the forecast General Fund Financial Revenue Outturn for Quarter 1 of 2026/27; and
ii) Notes that Service Heads will work to identify ways of mitigating the current forecast overspend of £23,000 over the remaining course of the financial year.
iii) Approves the revised General Fund Capital Programme included in Appendix A
The Board was advised that it was a new reporting mechanism and that reporting quarterly against the budget was good practice and part of the recommendation of the peer review.
The Board were advised that the Council were forecast to overspend by £23,000 this current financial year, largely due to increase court costs, and a increases in the Council’s insurance premium, both of these costs were outside the Council’s direct control.
The Director of Finance presented a revised format for the Capital Programme, this was a recommendation of the Transdormation and Savings Task and Finish Group. The new Programme now clearly showed a breakdown how schemes were financed.
It was recognised that it was important to show the Capital Programme from previous years as this was important to show any slippage. Examples of this included the disabled facilities grants and the Local Regeneration Fund waterfront project.
It was reiterated that it was good practice to undertake financial reporting quarterly, and the Board was advised that none of the borrowing was new, it was all as reported within the approved capital programme form March 2026 and was essentially a reprofiling of expenditure.
The Board were advised that the funds for the beach management plan were still marked as TBC as it was anticipated they would come from the Environment Agency, via the Coastal Partners, but was not confirmed at this stage.
Members welcomed that the predicted overspend was minimal and sought clarification of the current position of the new Council homes as they were still overdue. The Board was advised that the report presented considered the General Fund, and work was ongoing to produce a similar report for the Housing Revenue account. This report would be presented to a future Board.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the capital fund spend on waste was for the purchase of food waste bins.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that with regard to the essential repairs detailed at line 20 of the general fund, this was to replace hygiene units in public conveniences.
It was reiterated that the slippage was mainly linked to the LRF on the waterfront, but this was the public realm element and not the waterfront park, and that this was while some reprofiling work was undertaken, it was not a request for additional money.
A Member advised that they welcomed the report, and the presentation of funding sources and recognised that regular reporting of the financial position was valuable and transparent.
A Member advised that they wished for the recommendations presented to be taken separately.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
i) Notes the forecast General Fund Financial Revenue Outturn for Quarter 1 of 2026/27; and
ii) Notes that Service Heads will work to identify ways of mitigating the current forecast overspend of £23,000 over the remaining course of the financial year.
iii) Approves the revised General Fund Capital Programme included in Appendix A
8
Establishment of the Mr Reginald Young Trust
This report seeks approval to establish governance arrangements for the administration of a legacy received from the Estate of the late Mr Reginald Arthur Young ("Mr Young"), including the establishment of the Mr Reginald Young Trust, approval of its charitable objects, establishment of a Trust Board and authority to pursue registration with the Charity Commission.
Attachments:
- Document PO Board Draft Report - Mr Reginald Young Trust 22 Sep 2026
- Document PO Board Draft Report - Mr Reginald Young Trust (Redacted) - 22 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Solicitor seeking approval to establish governance arrangements for the administration of a legacy received from the Estate of the late Mr Reginald Arthur Young ("Mr Young"), including the establishment of the Mr Reginald Young Trust, approval of its charitable objects, establishment of a Trust Board and authority to pursue registration with the Charity Commission.
The Board was advised that he generous legacy was welcome and that the estate had been through probate and that the Council had received the funds.
The Board was advised that there was a number of options available to it with regard to the fund, how it was distributed and how the trust was to work that could be proposed to the charity commission.
Mr Young’s will was not specific in its wish, other than to help children in need in the Borough, which also gave the trust greater option in its choice of distribution.
It was anticipated if invested the money would accrue interest of £6-7000 per annum, the distribution of this could be considered an option, or the distribution of the entire fund in one meeting.
It was recognised that Gosport had a significant level of deprevation, across the Borough and in its national ranking.
It was suggested to the Board that approval be given to the recommendations presented and that a small group of Members then meet to discuss the best approach for the trust to take.
A Members suggested that speaking to Head Teachers would help to identify the young people currently not on the radar as being in need. Some Members felt that this was a good starting point, others suggested that Head Teachers would be very engaged with supporting those children in need, and liaising with the appropriate authorities.
It was recognised that the first stage on the process of funds distribution was to establish the trust, then agree an approach to awarding the funds, in an acceptable way to the charity commission. The Board was advised that sometimes funds could be time consuming and onerous to manage and that there would be set up and potentially running costs that the funds would need to cover.
The Board was advised that the funds would not be subsumed to a larger in the event that Local Government Reorganisation moved forward, they would remain for Gosport children in need.
It was acknowledged that Mr Young’s will indicated he was religious, and suggested conversations could potentially take place with churches.
A suggestion was made that the funds could support the summer passport scheme but it was advised that a low percentage of the attendees were considered to be in deprivation.
Members were advised that the awarding of small grants over a long period of time would likely be accompanied by significant administration cost. It was suggested that it may be an option to outsource the distribution to a 3rd sector partner.
It was suggested that an informal working group could be utilised to progress the trust once established, this would look at who would be trustees, and consider the best way forward. It may look at themes for the distribution of funding and take on more detailed research about the options available.
It was agreed group leaders should be contacted to progress this.
RESOLVED:
That theBoard actionsand notesthe following:
i) notes the receipt of a very generous legacy arising from the estate of the late Mr Reginald Arthur Young:
ii) acknowledges the generosity and proposes the establishment of the Mr Reginald Young Trust;
iii) approves the charitable object set out at paragraph 2.2(a) of this report or, where Members consider an alternative object more appropriate, one of the alternative objects set out at paragraph 2.2;
iv) establishes the Mr Reginald Young Trust Board to administer the Trust on behalf of the Council acting in its capacity as trustee;
v) approves the Termsof Referenceattached atAppendix A;
vi) delegates authority to the Gosport Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer to finalise the governing documents and submit any application required to the Charity Commission; and
vii) delegates authority to the Gosport Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer, to make any non-material amendments required by the Charity Commission during the registration process.
The Board was advised that he generous legacy was welcome and that the estate had been through probate and that the Council had received the funds.
The Board was advised that there was a number of options available to it with regard to the fund, how it was distributed and how the trust was to work that could be proposed to the charity commission.
Mr Young’s will was not specific in its wish, other than to help children in need in the Borough, which also gave the trust greater option in its choice of distribution.
It was anticipated if invested the money would accrue interest of £6-7000 per annum, the distribution of this could be considered an option, or the distribution of the entire fund in one meeting.
It was recognised that Gosport had a significant level of deprevation, across the Borough and in its national ranking.
It was suggested to the Board that approval be given to the recommendations presented and that a small group of Members then meet to discuss the best approach for the trust to take.
A Members suggested that speaking to Head Teachers would help to identify the young people currently not on the radar as being in need. Some Members felt that this was a good starting point, others suggested that Head Teachers would be very engaged with supporting those children in need, and liaising with the appropriate authorities.
It was recognised that the first stage on the process of funds distribution was to establish the trust, then agree an approach to awarding the funds, in an acceptable way to the charity commission. The Board was advised that sometimes funds could be time consuming and onerous to manage and that there would be set up and potentially running costs that the funds would need to cover.
The Board was advised that the funds would not be subsumed to a larger in the event that Local Government Reorganisation moved forward, they would remain for Gosport children in need.
It was acknowledged that Mr Young’s will indicated he was religious, and suggested conversations could potentially take place with churches.
A suggestion was made that the funds could support the summer passport scheme but it was advised that a low percentage of the attendees were considered to be in deprivation.
Members were advised that the awarding of small grants over a long period of time would likely be accompanied by significant administration cost. It was suggested that it may be an option to outsource the distribution to a 3rd sector partner.
It was suggested that an informal working group could be utilised to progress the trust once established, this would look at who would be trustees, and consider the best way forward. It may look at themes for the distribution of funding and take on more detailed research about the options available.
It was agreed group leaders should be contacted to progress this.
RESOLVED:
That theBoard actionsand notesthe following:
i) notes the receipt of a very generous legacy arising from the estate of the late Mr Reginald Arthur Young:
ii) acknowledges the generosity and proposes the establishment of the Mr Reginald Young Trust;
iii) approves the charitable object set out at paragraph 2.2(a) of this report or, where Members consider an alternative object more appropriate, one of the alternative objects set out at paragraph 2.2;
iv) establishes the Mr Reginald Young Trust Board to administer the Trust on behalf of the Council acting in its capacity as trustee;
v) approves the Termsof Referenceattached atAppendix A;
vi) delegates authority to the Gosport Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer to finalise the governing documents and submit any application required to the Charity Commission; and
vii) delegates authority to the Gosport Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer, to make any non-material amendments required by the Charity Commission during the registration process.
9
White Horse Inn, 117 Nobes Avenue, Gosport PO13 0HU - Proposed Disposal
This report provides the rationale for a disposal of the Council’s freehold interest in the White Horse Inn, Nobes Avenue, Gosport. The property is currently leased to Admiral Taverns Limited on a long lease with 27 years unexpired, at a nominal rent of £135 per annum.
Attachments:
- Document P&O Board Report - White Horse Inn - Proposed Disposal 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - Location Plan 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - Heads of Terms 22 Sep 2026
- Document Appendix 3 - Marriage Value Calculation 22 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property providing the rationale for a disposal of the Council’s freehold interest in the White Horse Inn, Nobes Avenue, Gosport. The property is currently leased to Admiral Taverns Limited on a long lease with 27 years unexpired, at a nominal rent of £135 per annum.
The Board was advised that the lease was established in 1954 as part of the redevelopment of Bridgemary, and that leases had been entered over time on similar terms as was currently in place.
The Board was advised that there was no indication that the site would be redeveloped in any way and that the owners had invested significantly in the venue and were intending to also invest in the garden area.
The Board was advised that a 15% overage charge has been agreed and that there had been a lot of speculation within the press about possible redevelopment in to possible residential, but reiterated there was no suggestion that this would be proposed.
The Board was advised that the method of valuation for the freehold was open book and there was no issue with the figures suggested being in the public domain.
Members recognised that there was a significant overage clause that would be required to be paid, but expressed concern that the owners would seek redevelopment, as they had done on previous sites.
It was acknowledged that the Council was not in a position to redevelop the site.
Concern was expressed that there were previous incidences in the Borough in which purchasers had waited out the length of the overage clause to then propose redevelopment changes.
A Member suggested that it would be useful to see the management accounts of the public house to ascertain the viability of it.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that Admiral Taverns had agreed to the proposed price, and had been seeking the purchase of the freehold speculatively for some time, this had been at a considerably lower offer. Previous offers had been lower and a strong deal had been negotiated, as presented, based on what was realistic for the site.
Members acknowledged that there were two issues presented as part of the recommendation, the first was that the sale of the freehold would generate income for the Council at a challenging financial time. However, the other issue was that the pub had a strong community link, was the only pub remaining in the Bridgemary ward and a valuable community asset.
Concern was expressed that management accounts for the Pub had not been seen, and that Admiral Taverns could have undertaken any renovation work they wished under the existing lease, which was significantly less than the freehold price. Members felt uncertain regarding the intentions of Admiral Taverns.
Members recognised that hospitality was a challenging industry and that the overage charge did provide a safeguard against future development. The Board was advised that the provision of covenants could be explored.
A Member advised that they felt that if the asset was lost in Bridgemary, then any funds received should be reinvested into the area. The Board was advised that any funds would go into the general fund of the Council, and that any decisions around spend would be considered by the Board in line with its responsibilities.
Members reiterated that they sought reassurances about the long term plans of the potential freeholder and sought to review the management accounts before agreeing to any sale.
It was proposed and seconded that the proposed sale be deferred until this was in place.
RESOLVED: That the proposed sale freehold interest at the White Horse Inn to Admiralty Taverns be deferred to a future meeting of the Board, pending receipt and consideration of management accounts and reassurances over the intended future use of the site.
The Board was advised that the lease was established in 1954 as part of the redevelopment of Bridgemary, and that leases had been entered over time on similar terms as was currently in place.
The Board was advised that there was no indication that the site would be redeveloped in any way and that the owners had invested significantly in the venue and were intending to also invest in the garden area.
The Board was advised that a 15% overage charge has been agreed and that there had been a lot of speculation within the press about possible redevelopment in to possible residential, but reiterated there was no suggestion that this would be proposed.
The Board was advised that the method of valuation for the freehold was open book and there was no issue with the figures suggested being in the public domain.
Members recognised that there was a significant overage clause that would be required to be paid, but expressed concern that the owners would seek redevelopment, as they had done on previous sites.
It was acknowledged that the Council was not in a position to redevelop the site.
Concern was expressed that there were previous incidences in the Borough in which purchasers had waited out the length of the overage clause to then propose redevelopment changes.
A Member suggested that it would be useful to see the management accounts of the public house to ascertain the viability of it.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that Admiral Taverns had agreed to the proposed price, and had been seeking the purchase of the freehold speculatively for some time, this had been at a considerably lower offer. Previous offers had been lower and a strong deal had been negotiated, as presented, based on what was realistic for the site.
Members acknowledged that there were two issues presented as part of the recommendation, the first was that the sale of the freehold would generate income for the Council at a challenging financial time. However, the other issue was that the pub had a strong community link, was the only pub remaining in the Bridgemary ward and a valuable community asset.
Concern was expressed that management accounts for the Pub had not been seen, and that Admiral Taverns could have undertaken any renovation work they wished under the existing lease, which was significantly less than the freehold price. Members felt uncertain regarding the intentions of Admiral Taverns.
Members recognised that hospitality was a challenging industry and that the overage charge did provide a safeguard against future development. The Board was advised that the provision of covenants could be explored.
A Member advised that they felt that if the asset was lost in Bridgemary, then any funds received should be reinvested into the area. The Board was advised that any funds would go into the general fund of the Council, and that any decisions around spend would be considered by the Board in line with its responsibilities.
Members reiterated that they sought reassurances about the long term plans of the potential freeholder and sought to review the management accounts before agreeing to any sale.
It was proposed and seconded that the proposed sale be deferred until this was in place.
RESOLVED: That the proposed sale freehold interest at the White Horse Inn to Admiralty Taverns be deferred to a future meeting of the Board, pending receipt and consideration of management accounts and reassurances over the intended future use of the site.
10
Any other items
That the Chairman deems urgent.
Minutes
There were none.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in